Michael of JudyGarland.com and His Thoughts on Heritage Auction Galleries

Michael Siewert of JudyGarland.com was kind enough to share some thoughts about his experience with Heritage Auction Galleries and other auction houses, and I felt his comments were worth highlighting by reposting them from the Reader Comments in the recent Heritage-related articles. I do not know Mr. Siewert, but thought we could open a discussion about some of the ideas and opinions he raised in his comments, in hopes of initiating a productive dialogue about not just Heritage, but experiences and opinions about auction houses in general.

garlandmike Says:
February 20th, 2008 at 3:21 pm e

As an Internationally acknowledged memorabilia collector, I feel well informed to tell you what I think is important for you to know. As the reputation of Heritage Auctions has been under scrutiny lately, I hope that my thoughts are of some help.

I have worked with every major (and most minor) auction houses in the past ten years. I have seen it all. I have always said that the auction houses were at the mercy of the consignor of any item. Almost in every auction catalogue I see discrepancies and forgeries. Sometimes I am shocked by how an auction house can market what they do. I have always been under the assumption of “buyer beware”. People ask me all the time how do I know that what I purchase is authentic? Sometimes it is not easy (as you can imagine) to authenticate a piece, but I do what it takes, usually with magnifying glass in hand, to do so. Everything I purchase is authentic. I do not rely on any COA….only my learned and trusty eye (and brain).

I feel that Heritage has been dealt a bad hand. The media, as per usual, smelled a good story and felt the need to expose Heritage Auction for the recent Ann Sothern items. If they had done their job well, they would see that Heritage is small potatoes, compared to what some of the auction houses get away with. Boy, could I tell them some stories. (Send them MY way!) It is clear to me, with the interviews that I have seen regarding the Sothern situation, that Heritage was most reliable and trustworthy in the situation. Heritage is only at fault in trusting their long known consignor(s). I know some auction houses that BLATANTLY sells bogus material. I know that Heritage truly believed what they were selling was authentic. There is a BIG difference between trust and downright forgery. The fact that Heritage is refunding monies are proof enough of where they stand on the subject. I would like to see other auction houses act accordingly!

Heritage proved themselves to me many years ago after the infamous Debbie Reynolds auction they worked on with Darren Julien. Long story short, I was getting screwed by Reynolds herself AND Julien (I will not give the many details), Heritage got involved and made the situation right by selling an item to me that I had bid on. I appreciate that to this day. That is proof of just how honest and sincere Heritage Auctions are. I could give you details about auctions held by Christie’s, Sotheby’s, Julien, Profiles and especially eBay, where almost ANYTHING GOES! It is unbearable, sometimes, to see what I do. Heritage’s auctions are always well organized and a pleasure to consider.

As the recent issues continue to be brought to my attention by other quality collectors from around the world, I remind these people what truly goes on in the collecting world and how truly small what Heritage’s issues really mean in comparison. I also remind them of the different motives involved, and again, the difference between trust and innocence VS blatant lies. I travel around the country (and currently working on a book) regarding my collection. I am ALWAYS asked how I acquire what I do and where I purchase. I hold back nothing when it comes to giving advice to collectors by telling who the good (and bad) guys are. Heritage is one of the few good auction houses and I think they should be proud of the hard work that they do.

All the best, Michael Siewert, JudyGarland.com

Michael, thanks again for taking the time to share your thoughts.

Just as a preface, I have personally never purchased any items from the notable auction houses – Heritage Auction Galleries, Profiles in History, Christie’s, Bonham’s, etc., so my opinions are informed only by my personal observations in the hobby and in talking with other collectors.

Having said that, I agree with your assessment that buying from auction houses is fundamentally a “buyer beware” proposition and most auction houses make this quite clear in their Terms and Conditions. I have actually written a series of articles focused fairly heavily on that and other cautions (see “Auction House Buying Considerations, Part I: Overview“, “…Part II: Chandelier Bid Legislation“, “…Part III: Bonhams“). However, I still firmly believe that every auction house has a responsibility to independently authenticate and verify every piece that they place in their auctions.

Of course, everyone has different standards as to what is acceptable in terms of determining authenticity, not to mention the very definition of what is “Original” (see “What is “Original”?“). That is why I always stress that discerning collectors really need to perform their own independent research, no matter who they are buying from: auction house, dealer, individual, etc., and that any piece should be approached as “inconclusive” until proven either authentic or inauthentic (see “Authenticity and Burden of Proof“, “…Part II: Inauthentic Props“). Having said that, I also personally feel that the auction houses need to have confidence in the authenticity of their own offerings, and it needs to be based on facts and information, evidence, and reason/logic, not trust or longstanding/ongoing relationships with consignors.

I think an area in which we have a difference of opinion is in regards to your view of the role of Heritage and the media in these recent events.

Your comment that “Heritage has been dealt a bad hand” I think discounts the fact that they, as the auction house, sold those L.A. Prop and Wardrobe consignments that they themselves now characterize as “not genuine” [per WFAA-TV 02/08/08 broadcast].

They are the experts, they reviewed the WFAA-TV investigation (obviously long after the sales), and that is their independent conclusion of that specific collection of consignments. Had Heritage independently vetted and authenticated those pieces prior to the auction, there might have been an alternate outcome. Given that the choice to authenticate the pieces prior to offering them to collectors in an auction was an option completely within their own control, it makes it difficult for me to see them simply as a victim. Having said that, if their assessment of WFAA-TV’s investigation and case evidence is correct, I give Heritage credit for publicly accounting for what they describe as a “mistake”.

You also wrote, “[t]he media, as per usual, smelled a good story and felt the need to expose Heritage Auction for the recent Ann Sothern items”.

Going back to the WFAA-TV report, Charles Heard, in expressing concerns about his auction win with Heritage directly – prior to the investigation by Mr. Schechter – (per the report) he was “getting the run around from this firm”, with the official response from Heritage being (again per the report) “we cannot see any issue or area of concern”. It seems to me, based on the information presented in the broadcast, that the WFAA-TV investigation prompted Heritage to address the concerns of this customer that were previously discounted.

Again, from my perspective, just as Heritage had the ability to independently verify the authenticity of the consignment items before the auction and seemingly elected not to do so, Heritage could have independently addressed the concerns brought to them directly from their customer to his satisfaction – concerns that Heritage now seems to be in agreement with – but elected not to do so until the media got involved. I do respect the fact that Heritage has offered refunds for those items that they have determined to be questionable.

You continue, “Heritage is only at fault in trusting their long known consignor(s)”. Again, I have a different perspective, which I have articulated above.

What is the role of “trust” in authentication?

Does not every piece, from every film, from every and any source, have its own unique “story” of provenance and authenticity? Does this not require that each and every piece be authenticated in its own right and verified independent of the consignor?

Is it appropriate to grant the responsibility of authentication entirely to the individual(s) or entity offering it for consignment? Is there not an inherent conflict of interest in such an arrangement?

In any event, please accept my questions in the spirit in which they’ve been offered – to open a friendly and productive dialogue and perhaps find some new understandings in regards to these issues arising out of the WFAA-TV investigation and subsequent mainstream media coverage, as well as the general role and function of auction houses in general.

Jason De Bord

_____________